• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TITANIC being rereleased in 3D in theaters on 2012

I think I was 12 when it came out. Saw it, it was alright. Bought it on VHS and never opened the package. If someone really wants to see it, I might go see it with them, but I'm not going to be motivated on my own.

Plus, if she had stayed in the boat, Jack could have fit on that board and lived.
 
I might sneak in to the cinema,
check out Kate Winslets chest on 3D..and then sneak back out:alienblush::devil::lol::p:shifty:
 
Despite being a big Cameron fan, I can't say I overly adore this movie. I do however remember seeing it at the cinema with my parents and sister when it came out, I would have been about 12 or 13, and been blown away by the visuals of it.

I also caught the last 5 minutes or so of it on TV the other week. Sorry, but I cannot watch the ending without welling up at least a little.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN_OmyAUrSU
Beautiful. Once that music kicks in at 0:40...

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the 3D, and so maybe for old times sake I would go see it
 
enough with 3d all ready I am sick of everything coming out in 3d when it does not need it.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing the last half hour or so of the film in 3D but not if it means watching the rest of the movie first.
 
Someone explain to me how you can release a movie in 3D that wasn't filmed in 3D originally? The only thing they can do is re-do the CGI in 3D. In which case, that makes the movie partially 3D. Misleading if you ask me.

Same applies to the StarWars Prequel 3D release.

Oh, you can do it. It's not easy, and it's not quick, especially if you want it to look half-way decent.

The actual process is more than a little technical and involved (and I'm skipping over a lot, if anyone wants to cover anything I omit or gloss over), but in a nutshell, you take each frame of the movie and offset everything in it appropriately to simulate the parallax as if there had been a second camera shooting it, so your original movie is, say, the left eye, and the modified frames are the right eye.

As far as how you actually do this, it's more or less a combination of two techniques (or, if you're in a hurry, it's one of two techniques). One way is to project the original frame onto a 3D plane, and then distort it, like a rubber sheet, pulling parts closer to the camera and pushing other parts farther away. Then you move a virtual camera to the position of the second eye, and that's that. This is good for subtle gradations in depth, like making the tip of someone's nose stick out from the base of their nose, which sticks out from their cheeks, but it falls down when there's a larger gap, like person standing with a wall twenty feet behind them. There's no division between the person and the wall, in that case, so it just looks like a lumpy photo instead of two distinct objects.

The other basic approach has the opposite problem. In this one, you slice each object out of the scene and then arrange them in 3D space, like a shoebox diorama made of cardboard cutouts. You have to paint in anything that you can see from the second eye that had previously been blocked by something in front of it, as well, but that's what gives it the greater sense of separation. The drawback is the loss of subtle depth, giving the appearance that everything in the scene is just a flat card with an actor or prop painted on it.

When combined, these basic techniques get you something that almost kind of looks like a filmed 3D image. Maybe.

Also, for a movie of Titanic's age, it may not even be possible to render a second-eye perspective of CGI shots. Between operating system and program upgrades, hardware changes, and the sad truth that data archiving is known to suck on occasion, they may not have the old files, may not be able to get them into a modern computer if they do, or may not be able to use them with modern programs if they can.
 
Someone explain to me how you can release a movie in 3D that wasn't filmed in 3D originally? The only thing they can do is re-do the CGI in 3D. In which case, that makes the movie partially 3D. Misleading if you ask me.

Same applies to the StarWars Prequel 3D release.

Oh, you can do it. It's not easy, and it's not quick, especially if you want it to look half-way decent.

The actual process is more than a little technical and involved (and I'm skipping over a lot, if anyone wants to cover anything I omit or gloss over), but in a nutshell, you take each frame of the movie and offset everything in it appropriately to simulate the parallax as if there had been a second camera shooting it, so your original movie is, say, the left eye, and the modified frames are the right eye.

As far as how you actually do this, it's more or less a combination of two techniques (or, if you're in a hurry, it's one of two techniques). One way is to project the original frame onto a 3D plane, and then distort it, like a rubber sheet, pulling parts closer to the camera and pushing other parts farther away. Then you move a virtual camera to the position of the second eye, and that's that. This is good for subtle gradations in depth, like making the tip of someone's nose stick out from the base of their nose, which sticks out from their cheeks, but it falls down when there's a larger gap, like person standing with a wall twenty feet behind them. There's no division between the person and the wall, in that case, so it just looks like a lumpy photo instead of two distinct objects.

The other basic approach has the opposite problem. In this one, you slice each object out of the scene and then arrange them in 3D space, like a shoebox diorama made of cardboard cutouts. You have to paint in anything that you can see from the second eye that had previously been blocked by something in front of it, as well, but that's what gives it the greater sense of separation. The drawback is the loss of subtle depth, giving the appearance that everything in the scene is just a flat card with an actor or prop painted on it.

When combined, these basic techniques get you something that almost kind of looks like a filmed 3D image. Maybe.

Also, for a movie of Titanic's age, it may not even be possible to render a second-eye perspective of CGI shots. Between operating system and program upgrades, hardware changes, and the sad truth that data archiving is known to suck on occasion, they may not have the old files, may not be able to get them into a modern computer if they do, or may not be able to use them with modern programs if they can.

WOW! :eek:

Thank you.

I was completely ignorant of this technique/process. I was of the opinion that the only way to get 3d was to film it with 3D cameras.
 
I have no desire whatever to see this movie ever again, in 3D or any other way.

Not even if it was FREE.

That movie was so fucking LONG (and more importantly, unnecessarily so) that by the time Leonardo slid off the board into the icy depths, I was glad.
 
That movie was so fucking LONG (and more importantly, unnecessarily so) that by the time Leonardo slid off the board into the icy depths, I was glad.

LOL!!!:guffaw:

Dont say that too loud in the crowded theater playing this flick.
The people that really like this movie have an emotional investment in it and would not take kindly to your outburst.:lol:

Personally I've never watched it because for all intents and purposes, it's a chick flick. Chicks love to drool over Leo. Gay guys love him too. You should read some of the comments on Youtube concerning him and is performances.
Outright lusty stuff.
 
^Agreed. And as I mentioned earlier in-thread, it may be a chick flick, but for those of us who are Titanic buffs it's also a chance to see the thing we've been excited about recreated with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There are other Titanic movies that I've seen, and it's hard to go back to them after this one because levels of inaccuracy that I found acceptable previously no longer work as well for me.
 
Only sexually insecure men dismiss movies because they are "chick flicks".

That's like saying girls dont like westerns and war movies because they are sexually insecure.

It's all a matter of tastes. To each his own regardless of sexual security/insecurity.
 
As a rule I'm over 3-D on NEW films.
I sure as hell don't want to see Titanic, a 15yr old movie, in converted 3-D.
You listening Lucas?
 
Personally I've never watched it because for all intents and purposes, it's a chick flick.

I wouldn't call it a chick flick, it's more of a formula big-budget blockbuster that tries to include something for every segment of the market. One of the most interesting true stories of the 20th century was not good enough, they had to add a paint-by-numbers romance, a cad with a henchman, and a very long and physically impossible chase scene. A thoroughly mediocre film and a very savvily packaged commercial product.

^Agreed. And as I mentioned earlier in-thread, it may be a chick flick, but for those of us who are Titanic buffs it's also a chance to see the thing we've been excited about recreated with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Yes, I'm sure a devotion to accuracy was the reason the producers had to apologize in person to the family of William Murdoch for portraying him as a homicide and suicide without any credible evidence.

--Justin
 
That's called artistic license. It's been going on since the Greeks.

Titanic's a very old school Hollywood production, the sort of thing that would (minus the modern special effects) have been extremely popular in the 1930s-1940s: big budget melodrama set against an historical backdrop. As a melodrama, it's done very well.
 
That's called artistic license. It's been going on since the Greeks.

That understood, I would not set Titanic up as some kind of example of historical accuracy.

Titanic's a very old school Hollywood production, the sort of thing that would (minus the modern special effects) have been extremely popular in the 1930s-1940s: big budget melodrama set against an historical backdrop. As a melodrama, it's done very well.

I admit it is not my kind of movie. I don't know what '30s-'40s movies you have in mind for comparison, but Titanic is very much a product of the youth-marketed blockbuster era, as opposed to the A-pictures of the earlier period which were aimed squarely at adult audiences. There is nary a note of understatement or subtlety to be found in Titanic, and the dialogue and characterization, compared to, say, Gone With the Wind, are pretty clearly not in the same league IMO.

--Justin
 
Titanic found a huge audience among girls and young women, but it was definitely not conceived as a "youth-oriented blockbuster" - for starters, Hollywood doesn't target blockbusters at young women, as a matter of course (certainly not to the budget they gave it, even before cost overruns). It was a huge success across all demographics (it would have to be, to earn the kind of money it did).

Dialogue isn't Cameron's strong suit, to be sure, but the characterization is quite effective, if heavily based in archtypes. Like I said, melodrama. Not to everyone's taste, but it's a legitimate genre.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top